Vitor Antunes <vitor....@gmail.com> writes: > Luke Diamand <l...@diamand.org> wrote on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 20:27:11 +0100 >> On 28/03/15 12:28, Vitor Antunes wrote: >> > I'm adding a test case for a scenario I was confronted with when using >> > branch >> > detection and a client view specification. It is possible that the >> > implemented >> > fix may not cover all possible scenarios, but there is no regression in the >> > available tests. >> >> Vitor, one thing I wondered about with this part of the change: >> >> - if entry["depotFile"] == depotPath: >> + if entry["depotFile"].find(depotPath) >= 0: >> >> Does this mean that if 'p4 where' produces multiple lines of output that >> this will get confused, as it's just going to search for an instance of >> depotPath. > > The reason why I introduced that was because in the test case I implemented > (and > which reflects a scenario I am confronted with in my workplace) the branches > have a base directory that is removed in the client view mapping. > As such, we will have a situation where depotPath is //depot/branch1/ while > runninng "p4 where" will result in //depot/branch1/base/. To overcome this I > used find() instead of a direct comparison. Now that I think about that, I > could > probably have used the simpler `if depotPath in entry["depotFile"]`...
Hmph, is this find() under discussion the string.find() that finds a substring? You are doing >=0 comparison here, but with your example that entry["depotFile"] may have "base/" appended to what you expect, the result of running string.find() must yield "0", i.e. no extra prefix string, no? I kind of find it hard to believe that it is OK to have any extra prefix is fine ... >> The example in the Perforce man page for 'p4 where' would trigger this >> for example: >> >> http://www.perforce.com/perforce/r14.2/manuals/cmdref/p4_where.html >> >> -//a/b/file.txt //client/a/b/file.txt //home/user/root/a/b/file.txt >> //a/b/file.txt //client/b/file.txt /home/user/root/b/file.txt > > These are examples where a simple comparison as was implemented would work. ... so is this "find()" an attempt to catch prefix like "-"? Even if it that were the reason why you do not limit the acceptable return value from find() to zero, it feels a bit too loose to allow anything if the only thing you want to allow is a single "-" prefix. Can you explain this a bit better? I cannot quite tell what is going on from what was written in the log message. >> As an experiment, I hacked git-p4 to always use p4Where rather than >> getClientRoot(), which I would have thought ought to work, but while >> most of the tests passed, Pete's client-spec torture tests failed. > > That was exactly my first approach and got to the same conclusion. I would > have > investigated it further but since I haven't had much free time to invest in > solving this problem I decided to implement an intermediary solution that > would > not introduce any regressions. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
